Talk:Epirus

Map

@Ahmet Q.:@Khirurg:

State of Epirus

Ahmet's map is probably the best map in the article right now and I'm sure that he did a lot of work to get it done. Khirurg's concern is that it doesn't show the State of Epirus in bold letters, but the infobox says "State of Epirus". It doesn't leave any gaps for misreading it. Side comment: There have been several back to back disputes today. I think that the situation needs to cool down and avoid a revert war over a great map that does justice to the extent of the medieval Epirote state because one of its labels is not bold enough.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of the Despotate of Epirus in the early 13th century.

Ahmet's map is problematic for the reasons I mentioned: Namely, "State of Epirus" is almost invisible, while the rather insignificant "Principality of Arbanon" is much more prominent. This just doesn't make sense. Second, the previous map is actually better because it shows the temporal evolution instead of a single snapshot. Ahmet should seek conensus instead of brute-force edit-warring. And speaking of "cool down", you might want to tell him to cool it (since you seem to follow him and back him in literally every single dispute he gets involved in, e.g. Talk:Greek Cypriots). Because as we saw in a recent arbitration case, the standards are stricter now, and edit-summaries like these [1] ("know your place") are going to get Ahmet in a lot of trouble very quickly. Khirurg (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

First, the side comment: you called his edits aggressive POV-pushing. This sort of thing will get many people frustrated and it evolves into a cycle of personalized disputes Now, the content dispute: Both maps can be used. Nobody forces us to use only one map. Ahmet's map is good because it has more detail and it allows the reader to understand the international context. You want him to change a label. Isn't it easier to just ask him to change it instead of removing it?--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The source from Osswald writes Arbanon in bold and it isn't centered because of the limited space, I have followed what the source depicts to avoid OR. Fact of the matter the source actually doesn't even label on the map the territories in yellow as "Empire of Thessalonica" or even "State of Epirus", that's something I have added myself in order to avoid confusion. On Wikipedia we should look at what reliable sources write or illustrate, so maybe we should just fellow the source completely and thus remove the term "State of Epirus" altogether from the head of the legend and from the territories on the map. In this way we would be completely sure that there are no OR and POV issues. Also, can you explain why the principality of Arbanon is "rather insignificant"? From which sources do you conclude this? Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahmet's map cannot be used in its present form, for the reasons I have mentioned. "Despotate of Epirus" should appear in much darker font. "Principality of Arbanon" should appear in smaller font and in the correct location to avoid misinformation. I will also contact the author of the original map. He put a lot of effort into it and may not take kindly to his being summarily removed by Ahmet. And yes, his behavior is becoming increasingly aggressive. As his mentor (I'm sensing that kind of relationship), you may wish to have a word with him, before things escalate to the point where he may be sanctioned. Khirurg (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't given any good reason to remove the map other than your own personal preferences. Also you label my behavior as "increasingly aggressive", what I consider to be aggressive is the fact that you followed me and reverted me multiple times on four different articles in less than 24 hours, even on articles you never edited before, like Feta and Greek Cypriots. Do you think this kind of behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia? Why did you do this? Considering that many decade-long POV-pushing editors have been sanctioned recently, I would advise you to "cool down" as well and to refrain from giving orders to other editors as you have done lately. If you continue on this path, I'm afraid nothing good will come from it. I would also appreciate if instead of edit-warring and using tag-teaming tactics (as one respectable admin has pointed out not so long ago [2]) you could debate respectfully. Lastly, refrain from qualifying my "relationship" with user Maleschreiber as a "Mentor"-like relationship. How did you even think this was even remotely acceptable to write? Do you think it would be okay for me to fantasize over the relationships you have with other users on this platform? Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

When I looked at the map, I felt the "State of Epirus" became a geographical term or something, and the Principality of Arbanon being the name for the whole yellow territory. Those who made the map should bear in mind that darker bold is for states, while lighter colors are usually for geographical names. The map could really see some improvements addressing the issues mentioned so far, before making its way back into the article.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There was no Despotate of Epirus. Ahmet and Constantine know that it's a historiographical term about the state of Epirus. Both maps can be used.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Despotate of Epirus is the most widely used term in modern bibliography. You should know that. Ahmet's map cannot go in the article in its present form, unless the issues I've mentioned are addressed. Khirurg (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Really, there is nothing wrong with this map. It is well sourced. Dare I say, perhaps it is blasphemous to show Arbanon existing? Sure hope not.--Calthinus (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbanon? The problem is Epirus, not Arbanon. Why, although the article here is about Epirus, the name of the state of Epirus is hard to see on the map. If every other neighbor has solid letters, including Arbanon, then why can't Epirus too? This was a rhetoric question and I do not expect an answer. The only answer here, can be one: to fix this cheap POV. The ideal is: change the state's name from "State of Epirus" into "Despotate of Epirus" and change transparency of text to make it as solid, on par with the transparency for every other state. I am sure third party editors are scratching their heards why we are... discussing this. The solution is reasonable and shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for the map's creator to fix. Edit: the state's name may remain "State of Epirus" and this is in line with the complicated background of the name which is covered in the article. For this reason, nevermind about what I said above - I have striken it.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the font for "State of Epirus" (I don't care if it's "State" or "Despotate"), the other issue is that as a vassal state, the label of the Principality of Arbanon should be in somewhat smaller font, considering that the other states in the map were independent, but Arbanon was a vassal of Epirus. The label should also be placed within the territory of Arbanon, not outside of it. Khirurg (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I tend to assume our readers have enough intelligence to infer that "Principality of Arbanon" refers to the entity that would otherwise be unlabeled, and not to the entire State/Despotate/Whateverdom of Epirus, for which it would be quite uncentered. Yes, the text for "State of Epirus" should be darker, the same darkness that not only Arbanon but also Serbia, Bulgaria etc have. --Calthinus (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmet Q: Several editors have objected to your map and explained the reasons. The onus is on you to make the necessary changes and get consensus. You will NOT ram it through with brute force edit warring, especially with disingenuous edit summaries. Khirurg (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if you would have actually watched the edit I made instead of simply reverting, you would have seen that I didn't re-add my map but another map of Constantine which was removed without consensus. As for my map, I have already stated above which changes I was willing to make. Ahmet Q. (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw that, but reverted because you are still trying to add something without consensus, all the while trying to reverse the burden of seeking consensus. I searched through the article but was unable to find when that map was added and removed. If the map had indeed been in the article for a long time, I would be willing to self-rv. Khirurg (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

POV issues

I do not have time enough now to edit the article, but the 2 last subsections of History have POV issues. The first one mentions crimes done by Albanians against Greeks, but not crimes made by Greeks against Albanians. It mentions the struggle of Greeks for independence, but not the struggle of Albanians and Aromanians too (revolts, Rilindja). The other section talks about the struggle of Greeks in Albania for independence and their human rights issues, but does not mentions Chams' human rights issues too (treatment by the nationalist Greek governments etc; the article only cares to say that they collaborated with Nazis). In general the article is focused on Greece/Greeks, sth that was highlighted in the failed GA nomination review. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously there should be a fair representation on those issues. Also considering that the Cham population comprised in terms of both population & geography slightly less than 10% compared to the Epirus periphery (and even less compared to Epirus region) we should avoid wp:UNDUE. Alexikoua (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What is "Epirus periphery"? Botushali (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Another issue not presented in those sections is that major Nazi war crimes are not mentioned at all (apart from those joined operations with the Keshilla): Massacre of Kommeno and Lyngiades for example.Alexikoua (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, add those together with massacres and village burnings done by Greek bands and armies against Albanians, and especially against Albanian Orthodox clergy (Stathi Melani etc). Either both or none.Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

After reading the article I see that various massacres by Albanian bands and the Albanian army are not mentioned at all: Balkan War era for example (see Tsoutsoumpis), as well as massacres of WWII era on the Albanian side of Epirus (Glyna, Konispol etc.). Should we have also assassinations of selective individuals? The murder of the perfect of Thesprotia is among them. By the way about the joined Axis-Cham operations there is only a single mention that numerous atrocities committed against the civilian population, but if we take the initiative to mention the killing of individuals (as in the case of Melani) then we should definitely mention the destruction of settlements (Sagiada), the massive executions of Paramythia and the forced expulsion to Nazi German camps (Fanari).

The burning of settlements by Albanian bands during the initial Italian offensive is also not mentioned in the current text (Igoumenitsa, Mourtos, Paramythia etc see Kretsi for details).Alexikoua (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to make a balanced proposal, where crimes and human rights from both sides are given due weight, you are welcome. Otherwise I will find the time and remove whatever content that make some History subsections look like a POV-pushing attempt. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"the massive executions of Paramythia" The Paramythia executions have their own article, but it indicates that there were only 201 victims. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: I agree that some parts should be re-written in both sections. Also some paragraphs are without inline citations or the existing ones should be checked. I can work on that.Alexikoua (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And what did you do? You only added content/sources on crimes committed by Albanians, and tried to remove sth about Albanian tribes. It was my mistake to wait for you to make the article in line with NPOV. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE addition in lead

The selective addition of short-term entities that existed during 1359–1416 falls clearly into UNDUE. Even if we want to overemphasize those 65 years the Albanian entities were not the only ones that existed in Epirus: Ioannina-Zagori-most of the coast (Venetian presence, Butrint etc) were not under the control of Albanian entities during this short period & Argyrokastro was controlled by Zenebishi after 1380. The concept to mention the Albanian presence in reference to this short period is clearly against a neutral lead presentation of the history section.Alexikoua (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, there were other political entities that existed, and they deserve mention as well. The role of the Albanian tribes in Epirus during that time is major, because it caused a collapse of local power structures, and this fragmentation made it easier for the Ottoman conquests (as is sourced in the article). As is discussed by sources, the Albanians in particular played a major role during that specific time frame, more so than the Venetians and the very short-lived Serbian empire (who were also heavily aided by Albanian mercenaries), and so it is not undue. Furthermore, these Albanians were the predecessors of the Chams and the other southernmost Albanian groups, such as the Suliots and the Arvanites, who played an integral role in Greek history. Those “small entities” were characterised by the region being overrun by Albanians, and as it was a crucial part of Epirus’ history, it should be covered in the lede. Trying to limit the role of Albanians in the region’s history is not very beneficial to the article. Botushali (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Trying to partially present 65 years of 14-15th century history is not beneficial indeed regardless of the ethnic group. However, I agree that all entities/groups should have a fair presentation. Alexikoua (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Anachronistic sentence

The specific sentence is supposed to refer to the 6th-8th century (Slavic migration), nevertheless it introduces geographic terms and ethnicities that are unknonn to this era (Kurvelesh, Laberia etc. even the citation doesn't) that don't have a place to this section:Slavic toponyms are nearly lacking in the mountains of Labëria (on the Kurvelesh plateau), in the Ionian coast where today Lab Albanian villages neighbour with the Greek-speaking ones, therefore it can be assumed that the expansion of the Slavs had not reach this region. As I see even the inline citation does not agree on this anachronistic mixing, since it provides a description on the current toponymic situation. As such those terms need to go from the early medieval historical section.Alexikoua (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)